Suggestion talk:20071115 Putrefaction v2.0

From the developing suggestions page:

Discussion (Putrefaction v2.0)

If you go ahead with this one, I'd definitely make it a subset of brain rot, otherwise EVERYONE will have it. --Uncle Bill 01:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an autoattack. - Pardus 02:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sort of. It doesn't do any damage by itself, has a relatively low chance of ocurring (20% or less), only occurs once per death, comes with a warning before the actual attack (probably), requires Brainrot as a prerequisite, and can be undone with a single FAK, which all Survivors should carry at all times anyway. Don't think of it as an autoattack; think of it as a possible consequence. Zombies are SUPPOSED to be dangerous, and this would make them a little bit moreso (lots of in-genre support for this: movie characters that mess around with, pointlessly abuse, or otherwise disrespect the Zombies tend to end up as Zombies themselves). --Steakfish 02:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah? So is infection. :P -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an autoattack, full stop. I'm not saying I'd Kill it, just don't deny that it is. - Pardus 16:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is an autoattack, in a roundabout sort of way. --Steakfish 21:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it as a sub-skill of brainrot, but theres nothing but downside for survivor's. It is a possible counter to the barricade system (this auto-attacks survivors HP while barricades attack AP) and it is quite good for a RP point of view so i might vote keep.--Zach016 02:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How dare you suggest an Auto-Attack, you evil, evil person. Actually, I like this idea just fine. A prerequisite of Infectious Bite would be most logical, though as Uncle Bill points out, most everyone would have it then. Still, as the game tends to screw any percentage chance under 50%, it would likely be less powerful than a real 10%-15%-20% chance. The fact that it only goes into effect upon the death of a Zombie would probably make this acceptable numbers-wise. Give XP farmers something more to worry about as well, which I don't think would be a bad thing, considering how easy it is to pick off wandering Zombies vs Zombies having no such avenue to exploit besides Revive Points, which offers much less return for the AP investment. I think the notification would be fine. Perhaps even as a new skill under NecroTech Employee, which allows a player to see both this notification, and whether Survivors are Infected or not.--Sara M 02:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

well, seems decent to me. i know its gona be a pain for survivors, but we can deal with it.--Themonkeyman11 04:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How about those with Brainrot have an ability to ruin buildings with putrefaction in 1 AP. That is, it would replace ransack (or make them the same thing). Brainrot is surely more of an encumbrance to a player than a toolbox.--Insomniac By Choice 05:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I would want to see it require both rot and infectious bite, 1 to make it less common and the other to make it fit the game logic... having said that i doubt many rotters don't have infectious bite anyway! Only real problem i would have with this is that headshot is not togglable making this a slight nerf to it. a better option might be if this triggered when you dump the body (that might make it a dupe tho!) --Honestmistake 14:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Infection from handling a rotting corpse? Nah, that'd never happen. - Pardus 16:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

O MI GOD!!1oneone TATHZ UNPOZSEBLE! ZMOBEIZ WTIH IFEXTUS FILUDS NO WAE!1!!one!!1 BoboTalkClown 21:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what?--Pesatyel 21:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Oh my god. That's impossible. Zombies with infectious fluids, no way." That clear things up? BoboTalkClown 00:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you.--Pesatyel 07:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is that, since it's a killing blow, maybe add one to the stand up cost of the zombie. It would help counter Zach's comment about there not being any downside except to survivors. Also, make it a sub of Brain Rot.--Pesatyel 21:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course the only downside is to Survivors... that's the point of all the Zombie skills, isn't it? --Steakfish 21:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I never meant it as a bad thing, just asking what the other side of the envolope is (i.e. wheres the balanceing feature to make it fair for both sides, alot of the survivor skills can be used effectily against themselves as well don't forget ex. radio operation = spam, axe skill = pking, construction = limited entrance, body building = benefits on both sides but at the moment are somewhat equaled out).--Zach016 05:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of a lot of Suggestions is to address a perceived imbalance that already exists in the game (on one side or the other, in whatever aspect the Suggestion falls under), thus no "counter weight" is needed unless the bonus is very significant. Of course, most everyone is going to have a different idea on what constitutes an imbalance or if there really is one at all in whatever area the suggestion tries to change. Sometimes the "other side of the envelope" to a suggestion is not needed, IMO. Especially not a "perfect balance", as that defeats the purpose if one is trying to adjust the balance in a way that they feel is needed to make the game fairer, more fun, etc.--Sara M 06:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said the balance wasen't already there, i just asked what it was--Zach016 07:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it? I thought it was to make the game more fun to play as a zombie. Survivors have the edge in being able to dish out more damage over a shorter length of time. Zombies are significantly limited in what they can do and 98% of it involves attacking or finding some way of attacking. This would fit into the latter and still not be too far out of genre. I've seen several zombie movies where one character makes a comment to another about being careful handling zombie parts/fluids lest they get infected themselves.--Pesatyel 07:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you're dealing with pure Flavor, it's always a balance issue.--Sara M 13:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

more fun to play as a zombie = more zombies in a diwiling population without a huge negative effect. That sounds like the balance to me.--Zach016 15:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't intended to address any balance issues. That's why it has such a minor effect. I think it would make the game a little more fun for both sides, though. Zombies love to infect people, especially people that kill them. Survivors might adopt a slightly more paranoid style of play "I don't have a FAK... do I take the kill shot, or play it safe?" I think anything that increases the fear/paranoia for Survivors makes the game more fun, and more genre-realistic. --Steakfish 01:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It gives zombies a power boost, tipping the balance slightly. My only point was that it is so minor that there doesn't need to be a balancing feature added for Survivor benefit. Any Suggestion that gives or takes power from one side or the other is by its nature a balance issue, whether you intended it or not.--Sara M 13:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How about it is only activated by headshots? The infection eats brain matter, explains why zombies keep trying to eat brains and brain rot, kind of like why vampire bats drink blood. - Pardus 14:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd make a zombie hunter skill called steady shot or something that negates the infection chance from this skill at the cost of an extra AP or two for the killing blow. Or something, I dunno, I'm just spilling an idea for you to chew on. --LumiReaver 03:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Put any new discussion below this

Pdeq is wrong, survivors are meant to survive, not kill zombies. Nothing they do is with the goal of killing zombies, everything is with the goal of slowing zombies down so as many survivors can survive as possible, even shooting them.--Karek^maps?! 04:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My comment is taken from "Suggestions Dos and Do Nots". If you have issue with it, perhaps you should talk to whoever created that page, but it seems to be a well-accepted guideline. Obviously, it would be more technically correct to say "Survivors are meant to survive, and in the course of doing so it is sometimes beneficial to injure zombies (to slow them down) or kill zombies (to cost them ap or to clear out buildings). Something that discourages humans harming zombies would therefore discourage survivors from accomplishing their intended goal." However, it would be moronic to make all the guidelines that long simply to be technically correct. The meaning is clear the way it is worded now. --Pdeq 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that is an idiot. Survivors have never been meant to kill zombies and gain very little benefit from doing so aside from an absurd amount of experience, that's part of the reason why every effective survivor tactic has involved running and hiding, not fighting it out in the streets. Then again, they are the same people who said that suggesting barricade nerfs isn't a good idea, so that page's credibility is lacking at best.--Karek^maps?! 21:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There are several strategic reasons to attack zombies. (And they don't involve killing zombies in the streets. That's not usually a good idea.) Attacking zombies in the streets makes them weaker in case they do break in, you can kill them more easily. Also, killing zombies is necessary when they break into a building that you need to defend (river tactics don't really work with places like malls and revive clinics). And from a sheer role play point of view, some people might simply find joy in fighting zombies. I mean, the fun parts of a zombie movie involve hacking away at zeds, not sitting there watching a couch pushed against the door and then adding more furniture to block the door. If you think the "Do's and Do Nots" page needs some serious work, perhaps you should start a discussion there. People frequently refer to it, so it would be good if that page is as accurate (but concise) as possible. --Pdeq 22:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)